Well, what about the ones I just listed?
Let’s hear it for the Rolling Stones! Let’s hear it for AC/DC! Two bands that make the same album over and over and over. I agree with your statements.
I started hating remarks like this way back in junior high school. “So-and-so sucks!” I decided way back then that really, almost no band sucks. I’ve discovered that, for the most part, “sucks” = “I don’t like”. Howzabout Journey? I can’t stand most of their music. It irritates me. But do they suck? No. Every member of that band was an accomplished musician. I respect their skills and their talent. I just don’t like their music.
In popular music, the only thing that matters is, do you like it? I mean, consider Yngwie Malmsteen. Some people consider him to be a guitar deity. I think he just plays the scales really, really fast. I can’t imagine listening to his stuff for pleasure.
Technique alone is irrelevant. Painter Thomas Kincade has better “technique” than Joan Miro, but only one of them will be remembered a century after his death and it ain’t gonna be Kincade.
If you don’t like Journey, then yes, they suck. They would do better to break up and do brilliant outside projects without the baggage of the Journey name.
The next time somebody tries to sell you on the “technical brilliance” of any artist in any field, just consider two words: Yahoo Serious.
What’re you talking about? The guy is a friggin’ genius! 
Then perhaps it’s because I’m a musician myself that I can appreciate and respect other artists, regardless of whether or not I like their music. Indeed, Rush seems to have a large contingent of musicians in their fanbase.
I was going to invoke Yngwie Malmsteen as an example of what Rush is not. He can wail on the frets and he’s great if all you care about is wailing on the frets, but his act consists of nothing but. Neal Peart may be Yngwie on the drums, but he’s integrated into a well-balanced musical whole along with Alex’s excellent guitar work and Geddy’s excellent bass work and his tasteful use of keyboards. And while the vocals are their weakest suit, the lyrics are their strongest. While most rock bands pretty much sing about nothing, Peart’s lyrics are always about something–usually something pretty interesting. And there’s such a huge variety so that if you find the lyrics of some songs to be insipid, hackneyed, or politically contraversial, there are more to consider that are insightful, imaginitive, relevant, empathetic, or tell a good story. As for the song structure, sure they’ve done some lengthy suites and songs with extended instrumental breaks, but it’s better to have some songs like that available to listen to than a void in their place. But most Rush songs are of normal length and, while they’ve done a lot of exprimenting and put out some klunkers, most are as finely crafted as anyone else’s if not more so.
Critics need to be specific as to which elements of the band’s output come up short, taking into account their considerable variety of styles and thei evolution over the course of their career.
In case anyone is interested in re-discovering them for the first time rather than going by older perceptions, here’s a list of some of their more obscure gems from over the years:
In the End - Fly by Night: A simple, shimmering riff that builds and builds
Lakeside Park - Caress of Steel: Very charming son vivid with childhood nostagia
Lessons - 2112: The one song that Alex wrote the lyrics for. I think its about an argument during an acid trip.
Cinderella Man - A Farewell to Kings: Very catchy re-telling of “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town” with a terrific bass solo by Geddy.
Cygnus X-1, Book Two - Hemishperes: Quite simply their masterpiece. If you can’t handle the 18 minutes, at least admit that “The Trees” is a powerful song.
Entre Nous - Permanent Waves: A rare Rush love song. Tell me this isn’t an extremely beautiful tune.
The Camera Eye - Moving Pictures: Their last song over 10 minutes. It’s art, baby.
Vital Signs - Moving Pictures: Science on acid, with an element of reggae!
The Weapon - Signals: Oooh, what a scary song it is! Send away to Count Floyd for your 3-D glasses!
After Image - Grace Under Pressure: If a friend dies, play this at his funeral.
Territories - Power Windows: An amazing swirl of past and present imagery. delivering a powerful and potentially controversial call for internationalism.
Marathon - Power Windows: Powerful motivational song. Play this in your headphones while jogging.
Tai Shan - Hold Your Fire: Another real change of pace. A delicate yet rich oriental tableau.
High Water - Hold Your Fire: It’s about how th essence of the sea lives on in our blood. Neil must have seen the educational film “Hemo the Magnificant” in science class. Lot of great “dawn of time” imagery.
That’s plenty. Good songs got fewer and further between in their subsequent albums, IMO, but having them there sure beats there being a void in their place. And that goes for Rush altogether, dammit.
In the spirit of open-minded inquiry, I went to the “artists” section of rollingstone.com, punched up Rush’s page, and listened to some clips from two recent albums. One of them was all cover songs, kind of an interesting take on “Summertime Blues.” The other was their most recent studio album with original material.
A previous poster said that Geddy Lee doesn’t do falsetto any more. I’d say he does about half an octave above falsetto. Peart’s Boston-y chord barrages and ponderous lyrics, which put me off this band in their heyday, are still in evidence.
Lyrically and thematically, I don’t see the huge spiritual and intellectual growth that, say, Bruce Springsteen has demonstrated in the same time frame. And while I’m not a musician like the band’s most ardent defenders here, I also don’t see the same musical growth that, say, Elvis Costello has shown over the past 25 years. Even that treacly candy-ass Rod Stewart has gone out on more musical limbs than these guys.
What’s wrong with Rush? Nothing, really. It’s just that everyone else from the early-to-mid 70s who’s still in the game has demonstrated more growth and savvy over the years than they have, and the School of Rock grades on a curve.
Um, I guess that should have read “half an octave below falsetto.” Sorry, Geedy. Half an octave higher would hurt.
Geddy Lee may have a high voice, but he’s definitely not singing falsetto. If you’d like to hear an actual falsetto, look up anything by King Diamond.
You haven’t even started…
I have heard the ‘praise/strong influence’ thing from these bands:
Smashing Pumpkins
Foo-Fighters
Live
Counting Crows (!!!)
Catherine Wheel
Local H
Babes in Toyland
Barenaked Ladies
Bush
Pearl Jam
Emmet Swimming
Jimmy’s Chicken Shack (I heard this straight from Jimmy)
Kid Rock
Primus
And I’m sure there’s more. I wouldn’t be surprised if Pavement and Placebo felt that a little bit. Simply put, if you were a white, middle-class male in your teens in the early 80s and you started a rock band in college there’s a good chance one of your seminal influences was Rush, acknowledged or not.
Now I admit, sometimes they miss enormously. Peart once remarked that his switching from the more complicated beat to a simpler, more streamlined drumming style with an emphasis on a ‘steady four’ with his bass drum almost made them ‘dance music’…and that’s so wildly off base that I don’t even know how to address is.
As for what’s wrong with them? Nothing. It’s their lives and albums. Certainly they’ve been successful at it.
Oh, and I HATE lumping Rush in with the ‘prog’ crowd like Genesis, Yes, and King Crimson. It’s more like Rush did it, got out of it what they wanted, then moved on where the others really didn’t. Rush switched from the long LONG songs more than 20 years ago and set targets for themselves of ‘less than six minutes’ at least that long ago. So there’s a lot of carry over.
WARNING!!!, THE FOLLOWING IS MY OPINION, MUSIC IS SUBJECTIVE AND THERE IS NO “RIGHT OR WRONG”.
I was a teenager in the mid to late '70’s and I have always been a Prog Rock fan, in my opinion Rush took the “Prog thing” and boiled it down to it’s base elements in order to sell records (not that there is anything wrong with that).
I have always cringed when I heard folks describe Rush as a “Prog Rock” band, I take that as a slight to “real” Prog Rock bands.
The first Rush album (pre Mr. Peart) is the only Rush album that I own, it rocks hard!!.
I don’t have to leave the room when Rush comes on (unlike U2 which I must get away from very quickly).
**JONATHAN CHANCE[/B}
Mentioning King Crimson in the same breath as Rush is blasphemy! and I am going to try very hard to overlook it (this time), King Crimson is a VERY experimental band that continues (and has since the late 1960’s) to go through huge changes in both personnell (Robert Fripp is the only remaining original member) and musical direction, bands that are willing to take musical chances carry a lot of weight with me.
The end came for Rush and I when I saw Geddy Rappin’ (my name is Geddy and I’m always ready booooeeeeyyyy!!!), first Robert Plant sold his soul to the Devil and then it was Geddy Lee.
Now let me don my flameproof suit for not loving everything Rush has ever done.
Unclviny
Or Franki Valli and the Four Seasons.
Che—e----e-e-erri Bay yay beeee!!!
Want to know a weird thing? I like all the above bands. I’ve never, ever heard this band “Rush” you are all talking about. I do not know a single song of theirs, can’t recall ever hearing one on the radio (and we have shows that play other 70s rock like Yes, Genesis, ELP etc).
Just thought I’d throw that out there. Maybe it’s 'cos I’m in SA, maybe not.
Well, Rush stopped getting airplay in the mid-to-late 80s so most of those bands I mentioned wouldn’t be on the air at the same time.
I’m just saying that the downstream influence of Rush is enormous.
[QUOTE=unclviny]
bands that are willing to take musical chances carry a lot of weight with me.**
and then
So… take musical chances, because that’s good, but… don’t take chances in a really different direction…
I understand.
I do.
Really.
And, while I admit that my exposure to King Crimson is very limited, what very little I’ve actually heard sounded very much like a lot of random noodling. Reminded me somewhat of Miles Davis.
Subjectively speaking, of course.
I am a huge Rush fan. Please refrain from directing people to Lakeside Park or Entre Nous. A most subjective Bleah to both of those songs, and they give absolutely no feel for the remaining body of work.
Fine, but my point is to expose people to the wide variety of tunes that they put out. I could easily have created a completely different list spanning the same time period while still not resorting to the radio-play hits. If most of the songs on my list sucked IYO, that would be something else, but we’re trying to get people to like them or at least resist the generalizing upon which the criticism is based.
Why? I enjoy listening to them, you enjoy listening to them, and enough people buy their music to keep them producing and touring so that we can continue to listen. If other people badmouth Rush, how does it hurt us? But I must admit that I am always curious about what music is liked by the people who hate Rush, thus allowing me to talk trash back at them about their own questionable tastes!
Rush and Robert Plant were Rock musicians and the Rap stuff just does not appeal to me (it never occured to me that there was a possibility of Rush or Plant Rapping and it was a major shock to my system both times), I am a HUGE fan of King Crimson but if they released a Rap album I think I can safely say that I would not like it.
As far as “taking musical chances” I meant more along the lines of Rythmically or Lyrically or structurally (can you tell that I am not a Musician?), I did not mean a wholesale change in the Style (Genre) of musical output.
Unclviny
Holy cow, who’s that guy on the left with the camel toe?!? :eek: